Appeals Court Rules for Meta in Case Brought by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Group

The big tech giant did not violate constitutional rights with its restriction of posts from the organization, a split circuit says.
Appeals Court Rules for Meta in Case Brought by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Group
Meta Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington on Jan. 31, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times
Zachary Stieber
Updated:
0:00

Meta did not infringe on the constitutional rights of a group dedicated to sharing information about vaccines, a divided federal appeals court has ruled.

Meta, which owns and operates Facebook, has, for years, been tagging posts from Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit group chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The labels state that CHD is spreading false information about vaccines, wireless technology, and other issues. Meta has also removed CHD’s ability to fundraise on Facebook and stopped the group from buying advertisements.

CHD filed suit, arguing that Facebook, with assistance from its so-called fact-checking partners, is violating the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendments, as well as federal laws against false promotions and conspiracy.

But a U.S. district judge in 2021 dismissed the case, finding that the organization did not provide evidence making its claims plausible, and a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 9 upheld the ruling.

Meta’s actions against CHD stem from the company’s policies, and private companies are largely free to enforce their own policies, according to the court.

“Meta has a First Amendment right to use its platform to promote views it finds congenial and to refrain from promoting views it finds distasteful,” U.S. Circuit Judge Eric D. Miller wrote for the majority.

While CHD lawyers said Meta should be treated as a state actor because the firm allegedly partnered with government officials to tag the posts, that treatment can only come in exceptional circumstances and CHD did not meet the bar for those circumstances to apply, the majority stated.

Documents offered by CHD “indicate that Meta and the government have regularly disagreed about what policies to implement and how to enforce them,” Miller said. While the government did flag certain posts to Meta through a portal that Meta had created, the company is allowed to receive input from the government and then decide on its own whether to act against the posts, the judge said.

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman, sitting by designation, joined Miller.

U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins partially dissented.

Collins said that, based on the available evidence, CHD has shown that it could plausibly allege that Meta violated its First Amendment rights. He highlighted messages from White House officials and other government workers to Meta flagging specific posts from CHD and Kennedy.

“The government expressed its specific interest in suppressing particular speech of particular speakers— including CHD and Kennedy—and Meta responded by underscoring the steps it had taken, and planned to take, to accomplish just that,” he wrote.

The actions happened as government officials openly threatened to limit or end immunity conferred on Meta and other large technology companies by a federal law, the dissent noted.

Meta did not respond to a request for comment.

CHD officials said they’re considering legal options in response to the split ruling. The group could ask the full appeals court to reconsider the case or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The First Amendment, at this point, seems hollow,” Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for CHD, said in a statement. “Often, the only speech ‘protected’ and heard is that which reinforces the prevailing narrative.”

Zachary Stieber
Zachary Stieber
Senior Reporter
Zachary Stieber is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in Maryland. He covers U.S. and world news. Contact Zachary at [email protected]
twitter
truth